The Handbook of Good English

When a baby just learns a language, he talks by putting words one after the other without thinking about style, usage, expression, or grammar. Sometimes, the novice writer does the same thing, too. Yet, good writing and a good command of the English langu

THE HANDBOOK OF GOOD ENGLISH THE HANDBOOK OF GOOD ENGLISH REVISED AND UPDATED s Edward D Johnson B EactsQnFik New York • Oxford The Handbook of Good English: Revised and Updated Copyright © 1983, 1991 by Edward D Johnson All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher For information contact: Facts On File, Inc 460 Park Avenue South New York NY 10016 USA Facts On File Limited Collins Street Oxford OX4 1XJ United Kingdom First published as The Washington Square Press Handbook of Good English by Pocket Books, a Simon & Schuster division of Gulf & Western Corporation, 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N.Y 10020 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 91-21872 A British CIP catalog record for this book is available from the British Library Facts On File books are available at special discounts when purchased in bulk quantities for businesses, associations, institutions or sales promotions Please call our Special Sales Department in New York at 212-683-2244 (dial 800\322-8755 except in NY, AK or HI) or in Oxford at 865/728399 Manufactured by the Maple-Vail Book Manufacturing Group Printed in the United States of America 10 This book is printed on acid-free paper PREFACE vii The Sentence Case of Nouns and Pronouns: Subjective, Objective, and Possessive Agreement Verb Tenses: Past, Present, and Future Verb Moods: Indicative, Imperative, and Subjunctive Verb Voices: Active and Passive Modifiers GRAMMAR PUNCTUATION Sentence Structure Comma Semicolon Colon Dash Parentheses and Brackets Question Mark Exclamation Point Quotation Marks Points of Ellipsis Apostrophe Hyphen Diagonal 20 32 48 58 63 65 81 83 94 121 125 131 136 143 149 151 166 172 182 216 • Contents HOW TO STYLE WRITTEN ENGLISH: MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICS Numbers Dates Abbreviations Generic Terms Titles of Officials and Names of Their Offices Forms of Address Place-names Titles of Publications and Works of Literature, Works of Art, Musical Compositions, and Other Works Foreign Words 219 222 228 229 232 234 238 241 245 256 BEYOND THE SENTENCE: DICTION AND COMPOSITION 26i_ Occasion and Intent Organization Tone Revision GLOSSARY / INDEX 262 267 271 278 293 uninterested the example However, an overriding principle of modern punctuation is to use none when it performs no helpful function and cannot be heard when the sentence is spoken I advise not setting off too unless setting it off is helpful in some way You too are an Aries is smoother trademarks should be capitalized; see Rule 3-12 The most convenient reference work for checking trademarks is the Trade Names Dictionary (Gale Research Inc.), which most public libraries have Owners of trademarks are obliged to use special symbols with them—an R or TM within a circle—in their advertisements; if they don't, they may lose their legal right to exclusive use of a trademark The general writing public is under no such obligation transitive verb a verb that has an object A transitive verb transmits its action from a subject to an object, as does the verb hits in The bat hits the ball Some verbs not pass their action along and cannot have an object, like the verb in The ball disappears, which is an intransitive verb transpire means become known or come to light, as in It transpired that he had been the culprit all along, but it is often used to mean happen, as in Something funny transpired on my way to the office The second meaning is accepted by dictionaries, and it must be admitted that the become known meaning is none too pure either; the word was coined in the early seventeenth century to describe the movement of vapor through a membrane such as the surface of a leaf (its Latin roots combine to mean breathe through), and it still has that meaning in technical contexts Nevertheless I advise not using the word to mean happen-, in this meaning it often seems pretentious or pointlessly whimsical, and the usage is apt to be considered a sign of ignorance by those who are aware of the become known meaning try and vs try to Try and is solidly established in such constructions as Try and stop me and I'm going to try and reach her at home It means try to It cannot be considered an error— it's an idiom—but it is decidedly informal Some are critical of try and, and I advise making little use of it; try to does not sound stilted in even the most casual speech uninterested See disinterested vs uninterested 413 unique unique should not be given a comparative or superlative form [more unique, most unique); see comparative and superlative unlike Errors with unlike ate very much like errors with like Neither should be used as a conjunction (see like for as, as if, or as though) Unlike in the War of 1812, the British had little at stake and Like in the War of 1812, the British had a great deal at stake are both wrong, and for the same reason However, the second sentence can easily be corrected by changing Like to As, but there is no easy repair for the first sentence The language has no word that means the opposite of as, so some awkward phrasing is necessary, perhaps As was not the case in the War of 1812, the British had little at stake, or else a complete recasting, such as Unlike the War of 1812, this war was not a threat to British interests Often a second error is committed at the same time: Unlike the War of 1812, the British had little at stake, with the preposition in missing, is a false comparison; see Rules 1-2 and 1-5 Perhaps because of the difficulty of finding alternatives that are graceful as well as correct, errors with unlike are committed by many who would not misuse like, and these errors get by editors too; I see them frequently in books and periodicals, not just in manuscripts Yet they must be considered rather serious errors, because they indicate a dim comprehension not only of the proper role of the word but of the structure of sentences in which it is used upon vs on When upon can be replaced by on, as most of the time it can be, 022 is usually better I put the book upon the table is slightly ponderous for / put the book on the table However, upon is as common as on in many expressions, as in Upon reflection I picked it up again, and sometimes comes more naturally, as in His schemes, built upon one another for so long, tumbled in disarray The up in upon is usually not significant; when it is, and would be stressed in speech, up on should be used: The moon shone upon the mountain, but We could see a distant campfire up on the mountain usage means manner of use or instance of use, though it often merely means use I object to his use of my typewriter suggests that I object to his using it at all; I object to his usage of my typewriter suggests that I think he misuses or abuses 414 usage it—I object to his manner of use In discussing language, usage of a word or construction means not just that it is used but that it is used in a specific way Usage can thus be good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable Whether a usage is acceptable often depends on the context, for there are levels of usage— informal, colloquial, slangy, vulgar—between the clearly correct and the clearly incorrect The most convenient way to determine usages of a specific word and the degree of acceptance of a specific usage used to be to read the word's dictionary definition carefully But some modern dictionaries, among them the Merriam-Webster dictionaries, which are very widely used in book publishing, make few attempts to distinguish correct and incorrect usage and levels of usage; they include occasional usage labels such as "colloquial" and "vulgar," but their intent is to describe how the language is used rather than prescribe how it should be used Webster's Third New International Dictionary, which is almost entirely descriptive, was attacked when it appeared in 1961 and for years thereafter by those who had long valued the preceding edition for its numerous distinctions and prescriptions The desk-size Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, which appeared in 1984, is based on the unabridged New International but does include comments rather peremptorily defending a few of the most disputed usages The Random House Dictionary includes more comments, which are less peremptory but also largely in defense of disputed usages The American Heritage Dictionary has many usage notes; some are based on the opinions of a panel of more or less expert users of the language rather than on scholarship or knowledgeable linguistic judgment, so they have little lexicographical authority, but they alert the reader to the strength of prejudices against many usages that lexicographers must accept as established Webster's New World Dictionary (published by Simon & Schuster, not Merriam-Webster), which has long been the first authority for many newspaper and magazine editors, provides little comment This change in the nature of dictionaries reflects a controversy over language study and over educational goals and standards that has been in progress for many decades, and, inconvenient as the change has been for writers and editors, there is much to say in its favor Edward Finegan's Attitudes Toward English Usage: The History of a War of Words (Teachers College Press, 1980) is a good account of the controversy on its several fronts 415 usage There are, of course, a great many specialized dictionaries and handbooks of usage Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, brand-new from Merriam-Webster in 1989, is an excellent supplement to any dictionary, including a prescriptive one; it is based, in lexicographical fashion, on citations of actual past and present usage from the huge Merriam-Webster files, but it also reflects careful and critical study of the opinions of dozens of writers on usage, and thus even when it supports a disputed usage—as it most often does—it gives the cautious reader adequate, if sometimes breezily skeptical, explanation of the grounds for the dispute Among the many books on usage written by a single author or pair of authors rather than a team, an older one, A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage, by Bergen and Cornelia Evans (Random House, 1957), is excellent Being scholarly rather than opinionated, it is too permissive for some; for example, with little discussion it accepts plural pronouns with everyone as their antecedent H W Fowler's classic A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, first published in 1926 and revised in 1965 by Sir Ernest Gowers (Oxford), is both scholarly and opinionated Its discussions are acute and often amusing, but compressed and sometimes difficult to follow, and some of the errors they cover, drawn from British journalism and other public writing, are uncommon here, perhaps because British journalists favor long sentences and complicated constructions more than most Americans Another classic, The Elements of Style, by William Strunk, Jr., and the splendid E B White, has deservedly been a best-seller for decades, but it is not a general reference book; although it has expanded from edition to edition, it remains a brief and highly generalized attempt to prevent college students from committing the most common errors and from assuming absurd personae as writers Many recent books are more opinionated than scholarly, and their value depends somewhat on what the reader thinks of the writer and of the writer's attitude toward language Some are good company, but some seem overanxious to find things in current usage to deplore; they might be said to uphold the Princess's English, because they complain about ever smaller peas under the mattresses of generally accepted usage Their air of moral indignation is not entirely inappropriate, since there is something shameful in the laziness and thoughtlessness of much public expression, but it makes their readers overanxious Quite unlike them is the very widely read William Safire, whose good-natured and witty New York Times 416 verb Magazine column—which is very often about neologisms these days but occasionally discusses basic usage issues—deserves its long life; several collections of letters to Safire it has generated have been published (Times Books), and they are fascinating proof of the diversity of opinion, both informed and uninformed The modern books that I have found most useful as an editor are by other working editors whose prescriptions and opinions reflect the realities and responsibilities of their functions, such as Roy H Copperud and Theodore M Bernstein Some other books are equally levelheaded and dispassionate but not seem to be based on much experience coping with actual text that must somehow be improved A few books are hilarious combinations of strong opinion and weak background, but even they are likely to contain worthwhile insights and to display an exemplary sensitivity to language Almost any oneman effort, including mine, is bound to originate or perpetuate at least an occasional questionable idea about what the language is and what it should be Those who take usage and its prescribers too seriously should read Jim Quinn's American Tongue in Cheek (Pantheon, 1980), which humiliates a few of us prescribers specifically and all of us in general—but they shouldn't take its antiprescriptive attitude too seriously either used to, use to a construction that indicates continual or habitual action in the past, as in We used to play tennis In negative statements, use to is used, as in We didn't use to play it as much as we now-, it is correct but seems clumsy to many verb One of the parts of speech; a word that expresses an action or state of being Every sentence, except some exclamations and elliptical sentences (see ellipsis), should have a verb He saw that it was good contains the verbs saw and was A verb that has an object is a transitive verb; a verb that does not have an object is an intransitive verb A transitive verb can be either active or passive; see voice An intransitive verb may be of a special type called a linking verb A verb can change its form to indicate its tense, its mood, and its number Such a change is called an inflection A verbal is one of three special forms of a verb: a gerund, an infinitive, or a participle A verb phrase is a verb form that includes both a basic verb and an auxiliary verb, which is usually a form of be or have A 417 very vs very much phrasal verb is a verb combined with an adverbial preposition; in He messed up the report, the combination messed up is a phrasal verb A verb root is the basic form of a verb; it can be thought of as the infinitive without to Thus be, have, go, and come are verb roots Verb roots are used in various compounds that are not verbs, such as have-not and go-between very vs very much The adverb very is not used alone to modify a verb—we not say / very love her but instead say / very much love her or / love her very much When a participle is used in a compound tense, the same restriction applies; we not say She is very enjoying her trip or She was very loved by her fans but instead insert much, or else replace very with much However, often past participles are perceived more as adjectives than as verb forms, and so we use very with them We would quite properly say She was very tired, using tired as an adjective linked to She by the verb was This can lead to uses of very that don't bother every ear but are considered errors She was very tired by our visit uses was as an auxiliary verb and tired as a passive verb—by our visit, supplying an agent for tired, makes it clearly a verb—and very now is wrong; the insertion of much is required Certain participles seem to reject very even when they are clearly adjectival In very belabored point, the participle belabored seems to retain its force as a verb and hence to reject very—or so my ear tells me; people's ears differ at any given time, and over time a given participle may become more adjectival than it was We must trust our own ears on participles that are grammatically adjectival, and perhaps must expect that people a generation older may occasionally wrinkle their noses at a use of very with a grammatically adjectival participle that to our ears but not to theirs is adjectival in spirit as well When we don't trust our own ears, we can insert much in doubtful cases, but we should not have so little trust in our ears that we change She had a very tired expression to She had a much tired expression Some participles, including tired, are likely to be listed as adjectives in dictionaries, and it is safe to use very with them as long as they are not followed by a by construction that requires them to be perceived as passive verb forms virgule a diagonal, as in and/or-, see Rule 2-38 418 voice virtually means almost entirely or nearly Some people think it should mean veritably, and that its standard use is an error in the same way literally is an error when it means figuratively However, virtually and veritably have different roots and different histories voice the form taken by a transitive verb to indicate whether the subject of the verb is the verb's agent—that is, is acting— or is the verb's recipient—that is, is being acted upon In the active voice, the subject is the verb's agent; in I hit the ball, the pronoun / is both subject and agent In the passive voice, the subject is the verb's recipient, and the agent is indicated by a participial phrase with by-, in I was hit by the ball, the pronoun / is still the subject, but the ball is the agent A sentence in the active voice means the same as a sentence in the passive voice if the object of the active sentence is made the subject of the passive sentence and the subject of the active sentence is replaced by a prepositional phrase with by: I hit the ball means the same as The ball was hit by me, and The ball hit me means the same as J was hit by the ball Note that the subject of the active verb does not become the object of the passive verb; it remains the agent of the verb In the passive examples above, there is no object If a sentence in the active voice has both an indirect object and a direct object, either the direct object or the indirect object can become the subject of the equivalent passive sentence The one that does not become the subject is called the retained object Thus He gave me the letter can become either The letter was given me by him, with the indirect object me retained, or J was given the letter by him, with the direct object letter retained The second version, in which it is the indirect object that becomes the subject, is difficult to explain grammatically, because the to that is implicit in an indirect object somehow loses its effect and the me that to would have as an object becomes I Standard rules of grammar would seem to require To me was given the letter by him That's what it would have to be in Latin—but despite the efforts of nineteenth-century rulemakers, English is not Latin Use of the indirect object as the subject may occasionally be criticized in Britain but seems to be universally accepted here A passive verb must be a transitive verb—that is, one that has an object when it is in the active voice—because if it had no object in the active voice, there would be nothing to become its subject in the passive voice, and a verb must have a subject except in certain idioms (see as follows vs as follow) 419 were vs was The passive voice is wordier than the active voice, and it is often comparatively clumsy When it is used excessively, it makes expression seem vague and evasive However, it has many legitimate uses,- see Rule 1-18 were vs was Were is used instead of was with / and he, she, and it in certain subjunctive constructions; see Rule 1-17 what is vs what are In some constructions, what combines the functions of the demonstrative pronoun that or those and the relative pronoun which For example, the cumbersome That which is important is the money becomes What is important is the money, and the cumbersome Those which are welcome are large donations becomes What are welcome are large donations As may be apparent in the second example, what are is often somewhat troubling; what is accepted by grammarians as a plural relative pronoun as well as a singular one, but nevertheless it seems happier in singular constructions There is a strong tendency to mix singular and plural verbs, as in What is welcome are large donations, and the tendency is stronger when some verb other than is follows what and there are several words between the first and second verb, as in What warms the cockles of our hearts are large donations The advice of most writers on grammar and usage, including me in the first edition of this book, is to resist this tendency and allow ourselves only either What warm the cockles of our hearts are large donations or What warms the cockles of our hearts is large donations, with the verbs agreeing in number In the singular-verb version, which I think is preferable, it is entirely correct for is not to agree in number with donations, since donations is merely the complement in the construction, not the subject, and it is the subject that determines the number of the verb (see Rule 1-11) What in the sentence represents a singular idea—a kind of donation—and since this singular idea is the subject of both verbs, it seems natural to make both verbs singular rather than to make both plural Even in What warm the cockles of their hearts are gems, coins, and hanknotes, in which the complement has three plural elements, I would prefer to make the two plural verbs singular, because I think What represents a singular idea, a greed, rather than all the items in the complement I have seen some sentences in which plural verbs seem irresistibly right, such as What have always been censured as 420 what is vs what are Shakespeare's conceits are completely justifiable, a quotation from Coleridge cited by the great grammarian George O Curme, but I think they are rare, because much more often the idea of the subject is singular Note that in this example it is not a plural complement that draws the verbs to the plural, for the complement is merely a modifier; the verbs are plural because the subject is a plural idea, and singular verbs would be unnatural What are called diamonds are often merely zircons and What are called diamonds are often merely paste similarly require plural verbs Plural verbs can result in terrible sentences, like the following from a weekly newsmagazine: What really bother George Bush most about Richard Gephardt are neither his accusations of presidential timidity nor his proposal to send direct U.S aid to the Soviet Union, but what the President considers the Missouri Democrat's "cheap shot" attempts to stir up class animosities The writer, or more likely the copy editor, probably traced the opening What through its negative complements (one of which is plural) and the second what to the plural attempts, and concluded that since attempts is the complement of the second what, that what must be plural, and since that what is the positive complement of the opening What, the opening What must be plural—hence the plural verbs bother and are, bother the eye though they may I think bothers and is would be much more natural The sentence concerns three aspects of Gephardt's behavior, and the idea, if not the phrasing, of each aspect can be considered singular Moreover, sentences in which the verbs are mixed, such as What warms the cockles of our hearts are gems, coins, and banknotes, occasionally seem worth defending to me now, as they did not a few years ago Perhaps What is thoughtlessly allowed to have the singular verb it seems to prefer or perhaps are is illegitimately and lamentably drawn into agreement with the plural complement, but I see such mixtures of singular and plural verbs in the best literature and the best of the manuscripts I edit, and I have tried to think of some grammarbased argument in favor of the mixture One possibility is to consider such sentences to be in the reverse of standard order, with the complement preceding the subject; for more on this wily reasoning see the discussion of subjects and complements of different number in Rule 1-11 In its "real" order, the example becomes Gems, coins, and banknotes are what warms the cockles of their hearts, and since what is now merely the complement instead of the subject, its verb does not have to 421 when and where in definitions agree with the preceding verb It might be argued that what still has a plural antecedent, and ordinarily a relative pronoun should agree in number with its antecedent (see Rule 1-12) But what is not an ordinary relative pronoun here, it is a combination of a demonstrative and a relative pronoun, and certainly it seems more like a combining of that which than a combining of those which, so I would argue that it is singular Another line is to examine whether the two verbs really have the same subject; if they not, perhaps there is no reason they should have the same number Certainly What is the subject of warms But the subject of are is really the whole clause What warms the cockles of their hearts, not just What The clause is something like a noun clause (see under noun) However, a clause used as a noun is always singular—a clause is a statement, a unit of thought, no matter how many plurals occur in it, and if it is used as the subject of a sentence, it always takes a singular verb, as in That their parents refuse to give them their blessings does not seem to have discouraged them, in which all the words up to does are a noun clause Thus though this argument supports my feeling that it is almost always better to use two singular verbs than two plural verbs, and perhaps strengthens my argument that what is correctly singular when the order of clauses is changed to make it the complement rather than the subject, it undermines my effort to prove that the second verb in a what is construction should be allowed to agree with a plural complement I'll continue to think about it My advice now is to take note of the condemnation of mixed singular and plural verbs and to make both verbs singular whenever what represents a singular idea rather than something plural—but perhaps occasionally to allow a mixture; if it really seems better it probably is better, and the reader is unlikely to notice that a rule has been bent when and where in definitions Overacting is when the actor tries too hard and A solecism is where you make some mistake in grammar are childish constructions Adults sometimes switch them around and complicate them, but they remain childish: When you make some mistake in grammar it's called a solecism Actually, when you make some mistake in grammar you probably get away with it and the mistake isn't called anything, let alone a solecism, so the literal meaning of the sentence is false Sometimes the when or where construction is an unnecessary complication and can just be eliminated: A solecism is a mistake in grammar Sometimes a what con- 422 who struction can replace a when or where construction: Overacting is what an actor does when he tries too hard When and where are, of course, quite correct in constructions that employ them to define a time or place, as in Teatime is when we bring out the decanters and Jerez is where sherry originated where is too often used as an all-purpose word to introduce a clause, as in / see where Prince Charles used "hopefully" as a sentence modifier the other day, in which the conjunction that would be better, and It was the kind of discussion where everyone talks and no one listens, in which the prepositionand-relative-pronoun combination in which would be better Where cannot, of course, be prevented from extending its applications beyond those involving physical location if that is the will of users of the language, as it long has been, but at least in formal writing it should not replace that or in which whether vs whether or not When or not can be omitted, it might as well be In J don't know whether or not to go, it can be; in / am going whether or not he goes (or whether he goes or not), it cannot be Errors occur in long sentences with whether or not, as in J am going whether or not John, who said he had the minutes of the last meeting prepared and I could take them, goes or not This reduces to / am going whether or not John goes or not, which is a redundancy The sentence does require one or not but shouldn't have two which vs that See that vs which while means during the time that, as in John slept while his children cleaned the house, and also whereas and sometimes but, as in While some children are lazy, some parents are too and John is lazy, while his children are quite energetic Too often it is used when neither of these meanings applies, as in John is a popular fellow, while his wife is one of the best hostesses in town, in which it means simply and, the most common conjunction I advise not using while when and is meant who is sometimes used with something inanimate as its antecedent, as in The report praised General Motors, who had quickly admitted responsibility and promised to recall their 423 who, whom; whoever, whomever 1928 models In the example, the usage is encouraged by the verbs that follow, because it is difficult to imagine something inanimate admitting and promising, and the who then encourages the plural pronoun their The usage would be acceptable in Britain (see the discussion of subjects that look singular but may be plural in Rule 1-11), but the dominant American practice is to consider corporations, government bodies, and such things impersonal and singular, even with verbs that imply an animate subject If General Motors is replaced by the management of General Motors, the subject is still impersonal and singular; a term that specifically denotes people, such as the directors, is needed to make the subject personal and plural who, whom-, whoever, whomever There is no question that who and whoever are the correct forms for the subjective case and whom and whomever are the correct forms for the objective case Nevertheless, who and whoever are often used when strict grammar calls for the objective case, and such usage is acceptable in speech and most writing; see Rules 1-8 and 1-9 However, the opposite flouting of grammatical rules—using whom or whomever when the subjective case is called for, as in For whomever kills the dragon there will be a crown—is not acceptable; see the discussion of pronouns as part of their own clauses in Rule 1-6 Than whom, as in John, than whom there is no more skillful sailor, capsized, is correct, even though the subjective case seems clearly called for unless than is accepted as a preposition, which ordinarily it is not—it is accepted only as a conjunction See also than whose vs of which Whose seems to be based on the pronoun who, which should be used only when its antecedent is human or at least something animate, and therefore the rule used to be that whose should not be used with an inanimate antecedent Such usages as These are the organizations whose members generally vote twice and Show me a street whose inhabitants don't love it were condemned The correct forms of the examples would be These are the organizations of which the members generally vote twice and Show me a street the inhabitants of which don't love it, which to modern ears seem in far worse trouble than could be caused by using whose to represent a thing rather than a person Whose with an inanimate antecedent is now accepted 424 your vs you're Nevertheless, whose still seems inelegant to some people when it can be avoided easily, and sometimes it is still incorrect It should not be used as an interrogative pronoun with something inanimate as its referent, as in Whose climate is better, Florida's or California's! I met that author whose book I read is a conventional use of whose with a person as its antecedent, but / read that book whose author I met is clumsy,- it should be changed to I read that book by the author I met or some similar rewording whose vs who's These words are so often confused in manuscripts that something worse than mere carelessness must often be the problem Who's is the contraction of who is or who has, as in J wonder who's here and / wonder who's been invited Whose is the possessive form of who, as in / think I know whose woods these are and Whose woods are these! word order the principal method by which individual words are made into meaningful sentences in English See syntax worth In constructions such as ten dollars' worth, the apostrophe is often omitted It is required, as is evident from some other phrases such as his money's worth Some may omit the apostrophe because they think the idea of possession is rather remote in such constructions, but it often is remote in other possessive constructions as well; see possessive case would have vs had Would have is more and more common where had is required, as in / wish you would have done it and / would have done it if you would have asked me The examples should be corrected to I wish you had done it and / would have done it if you had asked me See the discussion of problems with subjunctive tenses in Rule 1-14 your vs you're Like whose and who's, these words are confused surprisingly often Your is a possessive pronoun, as in This is your life You're is the contraction of you are, as in You're going to have to live your own life I sometimes see the error your's It should be yours, a special form that the pronoun you has when it is an independent possessive,- see possessive case 425 zeugma zeugma the use of a word, often a verb, in two senses, as in He took his hat and his leave, in which the verb took has a distinctly different meaning with one of its objects than it does with the other In / was repelled by his threadbare clothes and manners the adjective threadbare is used literally with clothes and figuratively with manners Zeugma is sometimes loosely called syllepsis; see the discussion of omission of verb forms in Rule 1-2 Zeugma is often accidental, as in She wore a rusty black dress, a feather boa, and an alligator handbag-, since wore has no legitimate application to handbag, this zeugma is an error When it is used deliberately, it is usually for humorous effect M H Abrams in his A Glossary of Literary Terms includes a sardonic zeugma from Byron: The loud tempests raise / The waters, and repentance for past sinning 426 ABOUT THE AUTHOR D JOHNSON was born in 1935 He was graduated from Exeter and Harvard, and since 1960 he has been a book editor He has worked for Simon & Schuster, Alfred A Knopf, and several other publishing houses,- he is currently a freelance editor EDWARD 427 ... THE HANDBOOK OF GOOD ENGLISH THE HANDBOOK OF GOOD ENGLISH REVISED AND UPDATED s Edward D Johnson B EactsQnFik New York • Oxford The Handbook of Good English: Revised and... the object of the preposition of, not a word in apposition to the subject of the verb; there is no apposition in the sentence The entire phrase All of us is the subject, and the case of the pronoun... game They can both please themselves and please others with their play; they give their listeners or readers a good game They also win their way more frequently Good English is not the best English